Check out Balbo's Chess, our featured variant for October, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier Reverse Order Later
[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Andy Thomas wrote on Fri, Apr 7, 2006 05:55 AM UTC:
I have been playing a bit of both chinese chess and western (fide) chess
and have a few general observations as to why each is a unique
'variant.'

1) Space: chinese chess - with its 90 cells (versus 64 for fide) and open
files at the start - simply plays with a more 'wide open' feel. 

2) Development: With the more immediate attack lines available in chinese
chess, the middle game seems to begin at about 5-10 turns earlier than in
fide games.

3) Firepower: Perhaps this touches on the ongoing discussion here as to
the value of various pieces. In chinese chess you have far less firepower
on a larger board than in fide. FIDE has such powerful bishops, and the
queen; plus the knights are more powerful than their horse counterparts
in
chinese chess. In chinese chess, the lack of firepower is balanced by
confining the 2 opposing kings to their respective 'castles;' whereas
with the added firepower and smaller board of fide the kings roam free.

4) The River and the Late Game: With only 11 of 16 pieces able to move
across the river in chinese chess, this is a marked contrast to the
complete mobility of all pieces in fide. Sometimes, the limited number of
offensive pieces remaining at the end of a xiang qi game can make
checkmating the opposing king very difficult. 

Well, these are just a few observations; I'm sure there are many
contrasts that have been left out.

In the actual theory of both games i consider myself to be a
'manueverist,' always looking to trade pieces for position; a risky
prospect to say the least, but when it pays off it seems to do so in
spectacular fashion.

In fide i like to clear the board; open lanes whilst trading my knights
for my opponent's bishops, preferring to go into the end game with a more
open board and my bishop pair remaining. I always keep in mind that the
first bishop lost is worth more than the one which remains, something like
3.5 points for #1 and 2.5 points for #2; this is why i like to keep the
pair intact.

but i digress... Does anyone have any other comments on differences
they've noticed between xiang qi and fide chess?

Joost Brugh wrote on Fri, Apr 7, 2006 12:16 PM UTC:
A very important point in Pawns. In FIDE chess the Pawn skeleton is a key
strategic element. Pawns on adjacent files protect each other. The idea
'Pawns are the soul of chess' certainly applies more for FIDE chess than
for Xiang Qi. Piece strategy in the middle game and in the endgame are much
related to Pawn structure. The Pawn structure defines your playing space in
the middle game. If you want to penetrate through the opponent's Pawn
fortification (with brute force), you have to sacrifice at least a piece
with thrice the value of the Pawn (Knight or Bishop). In Xiang Qi, a Pawn
isn't worth much less than an Elephant (at least when the Pawn moved
twice, getting it across the river). In the endgame, Pawn promotion is a
much bigger issue in FIDE chess. With little material the mobile FIDE King
isn't easily checkmated. The idea of the endgame is to use the King as an
attacker and the goal is to get a Pawn across the board. In Xiang Qi, the
goal of the endgame is still to attack the King, not to eliminate Pawns
with the King.

Andy Thomas wrote on Fri, Apr 7, 2006 08:22 PM UTC:
Perhaps it could be said that xiang qi plays 'smaller' in the endgame and
fide, 'bigger.' 

In xiang qi the battles begin to swirl around the respective palaces,
whereas in fide the king is roaming at large, oftentimes being a key piece
in a player's attack.

Now, there is the cross-board, 'attack' of the king in xiang qi, but to
me that is a small exception to this overall idea.

Yesterday I was checkmated by a horse and a pawn in xiang qi. This could
have been avoided but it is also a common type of lapse on the part of the
defender in that game, at least in my experience.

With the mobile king in fide, you oftentimes need a bit more muscle than
that to accomplish checkmate.

And the promoting pawns of fide are a big difference, yes.

It is so fascinating, how these two games are designed; the distinctive
features which balance each one out.

3 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.